VÍDEO: Vigília pelas crianças no dia 23 de Julho de 2013 diante da assembleia da república em Lisboa

Um grupo de cidadãos crentes reuniu-se a 23 de Julho para reflectir e rezar pelas crianças em risco de poderem vir a ser legalmente co-adoptadas por pseudocasais do mesmo sexo. Uma manifestação de auto-intitulados "gays" contra-manifestou-se à beira do mesmo local.

U.S. Catholic Relief Services distributes abortifacients in Madagascar: on-the-ground investigation by Patrick B. Craine

MADAGASCAR, July 25, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An on-the-ground investigation in Madagascar has found that the U.S. Bishops’ relief agency is distributing contraceptives and abortifacients in the African country as part of a cross-country program funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The news comes as CRS scrambles to affirm its commitment to upholding Catholic teaching after LifeSiteNews revealed they had given over $13 million to the pro-abortion CARE in 2012, and are in the midst of giving a $2.7 million grant to the leading abortion-marketing firm Population Services International.

The Population Research Institute issued the first of a series of reports this afternoon after they sent an investigator to Madagascar for a month to interview officials and witness the Catholic agency’s work first-hand.

According to PRI’s report, the Catholic agency employs over 250 community health workers in the country who distribute contraceptives “under the name of Catholic Relief Services.”

See the Population Research Institute's report here.

PRI reports that USAID has divided the country into districts called “communes” which are each serviced by a different NGO. Each NGO is responsible for offering the “whole package of health activities” in its communes, including contraceptive and abortifacient drugs and devices.

PRI’s investigator interviewed USAID and CRS officials, who confirmed that CRS carries out the “same work” in its 125 communes as other NGOs do in theirs.

“We all [NGOs] do the same work, including in the area of family planning,” a CRS zone supervisor informed the investigator.

“For us, there’s nothing special with CRS: CRS works in family planning just like the others,” Jean Patrick Bourahimou, program manager for USAID-SantéNet, told PRI. “We, the USAID technical specialists, are there for that, precisely to assure that the implementers from the different consortium members are using the same approach.”

 A CRS business card in Madagascar includes CARE's logo.

Credit: Population Research Institute, pop.org

USAID officials also told PRI that CRS’ community health workers are given the same training as other NGO workers. According to the officials, “structural mechanisms were in place to ensure that all health workers used and promoted the same family planning programs, regardless of their NGO associations,” writes PRI.

The pro-life group points out that the head of one of CRS’ regional offices in the country, Andry Ramamonjisoa, used to work for the United Nations Population Fund. “Before this [CRS], I worked with UNFPA, mainly dealing with family planning,” he told them.

The pro-life organization also reports that the pro-abortion group CARE runs USAID communes in the country, and that CRS and CARE work so closely that CRS business cards have CARE’s logo on them in addition to CRS’ logo, and vice versa for CARE.

Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, who authored the report along with media coordinator Anne Roback Morse, told LifeSiteNews that their investigator has over 25 years of experience working with NGOs.

“Why would an ostensibly ‘Catholic’ organization decide to carry out such an objectively immoral program to begin with?” ask Mosher and Roback Morse in the report. “Was it the money? Was it pressure from USAID? Was it the progressive abandonment of its Catholic identity in favor of a comforting and undemanding view of itself as being merely one more secular humanitarian relief agency?”

“How many children have been aborted or contracepted out of existence by CRS?” they ask. “CRS should be able to tell us a number.  After all, all NGOs are required to submit periodic reports to USAID on their performance in increasing the ‘contraceptive prevalence rate.’”

“The Catholic Church teaches hard Truths, to be sure, but those individuals and organizations who would call themselves ‘Catholic’ are duty-bound to abide by them.”

Mosher and Roback Morse conclude by saying they hope the report “will be of assistance to the American bishops in carrying out much-needed reforms at Catholic Relief Services.”

LifeSiteNews contacted CRS for comment but did not hear back by press time.

Contact info:

Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Piazza del S. Uffizio, 11, 00193 Roma, Italy
phone: (011) 39-06-6988-3357
phone: (011) 39-06-6988-3413
Fax: (011) 39-06-6988-3409
E-mail: cdf@cfaith.va

Find contact information for all U.S. Bishops here.

Readers may also comment on Catholic Relief Services’ Facebook page.

What Is Religious Freedom? - by Robert P. George

In The Public Discourse 

In its fullest and most robust sense, religion is the human person’s being in right relation to the divine. All of us have a duty, in conscience, to seek the truth and to honor the freedom of all men and women everywhere to do the same.

When the US Congress passed the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998, it recognized that religious liberty and the freedom of conscience are in the front rank of the essential human rights whose protection, in every country, merits the solicitude of the United States in its foreign policy. Therefore, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, of which I became chair yesterday, was created by the act to monitor the state of these precious rights around the world.

But why is religious freedom so essential? Why does it merit such heightened concern by citizens and policymakers alike? In order to answer those questions, we should begin with a still more basic question. What is religion?

Religion as Right Relation to the Divine

In its fullest and most robust sense, religion is the human person’s being in right relation to the divine—the more-than-merely-human source or sources, if there be such, of meaning and value. In the perfect realization of the good of religion, one would achieve the relationship that the divine—say God himself, assuming for a moment the truth of monotheism—wishes us to have with Him.

Of course, different traditions of faith have different views of what constitutes religion in its fullest and most robust sense. There are different doctrines, different scriptures, different ideas of what is true about spiritual things and what it means to be in proper relationship to the more-than-merely-human source or sources of meaning and value that different traditions understand as divinity.

For my part, I believe that reason has a very large role to play for each of us in deciding where spiritual truth most robustly is to be found. And by reason here, I mean not only our capacity for practical reasoning and moral judgment, but also our capacities for understanding and evaluating claims of all sorts: logical, historical, scientific, and so forth. But one need not agree with me about this in order to affirm with me that there is a distinct human good of religion—a good that uniquely shapes one’s pursuit of and participation in all the aspects of our flourishing as human beings—and that one begins to realize and participate in this good from the moment one begins the quest to understand the more-than-merely-human sources of meaning and value and to live authentically by ordering one’s life in line with one’s best judgments of the truth in religious matters.

If I am right, then the existential raising of religious questions, the honest identification of answers, and the fulfilling of what one sincerely believes to be one’s duties in the light of those answers are all parts of the human good of religion. But if that is true, then respect for a person’s well-being, or more simply respect for the person, demands respect for his or her flourishing as a seeker of religious truth and as one who lives in line with his or her best judgments of what is true in spiritual matters. And that, in turn, requires respect for everyone’s liberty in the religious quest—the quest to understand religious truth and order one’s life in line with it.

Because faith of any type, including religious faith, cannot be authentic—it cannot be faith—unless it is free, respect for the person—that is to say, respect for his or her dignity as a free and rational creature—requires respect for his or her religious liberty. That is why it makes sense, from the point of view of reason, and not merely from the point of view of the revealed teaching of a particular faith—though many faiths proclaim the right to religious freedom on theological and not merely philosophical grounds—to understand religious freedom as a fundamental human right.

Since its establishment by Congress, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom has stood for religious freedom in its most robust sense. It has recognized that the right to religious freedom is far more than a mere “right to worship.” It is a right that pertains not only to what the believer does in the synagogue, church, or mosque, or in the home at mealtimes or before bed; it is the right to express one’s faith in the public as well as private sphere and to act on one’s religiously informed convictions about justice and the common good in carrying out the duties of citizenship. Moreover, the right to religious freedom by its very nature includes the right to leave a religious community whose convictions one no longer shares and the right to join a different community of faith, if that is where one’s conscience leads. And respect for the right strictly excludes the use of civil authority to punish or impose civic disabilities on those who leave a faith or change faiths.

From the perspective of any believer, the further away one gets from the truth of faith in all its dimensions, the less fulfillment is available. But that does not mean that even a primitive and superstition-laden faith is utterly devoid of value, or that there is no right to religious liberty for people who practice such a faith. Nor does it mean that atheists have no right to religious freedom. Respect for the good of religion requires that civil authority respect and nurture conditions in which people can engage in the sincere religious quest and live lives of authenticity reflecting their best judgments as to the truth of spiritual matters. To compel an atheist to perform acts that are premised on theistic beliefs that he cannot, in good conscience, share, is to deny him the fundamental bit of the good of religion that is his, namely, living with honesty and integrity in line with his best judgments about ultimate reality. Coercing him to perform religious acts does him no good, since faith really must be free, and coercion dishonors his dignity as a free and rational person.

Just Limits on the Freedom of Religion

Of course, there are limits to the freedom that must be respected for the sake of the good of religion and the dignity of the human person as a being whose integral fulfillment includes the spiritual quest and the ordering of one’s life in line with one’s best judgment as to what spiritual truth requires. Grave injustice can be committed by sincere people for the sake of religion. The presumption in favor of respecting liberty must be powerful and broad. But it is not unlimited.

Even the great end of getting right with God cannot justify a morally bad means, even for the sincere believer. I don’t doubt the sincerity of the Aztecs in practicing human sacrifice, or the sincerity of those in the history of various traditions of faith who used coercion and even torture in the cause of what they believed was religiously required. But these things are deeply wrong, and should not be tolerated in the name of religious freedom. To suppose otherwise is to back oneself into the awkward position of supposing that violations of religious freedom (and other injustices of equal gravity) must be respected for the sake of religious freedom.

Still, to overcome the powerful and broad presumption in favor of religious liberty, to be justified in requiring the believer to do something contrary to his faith or forbidding the believer to do something his conscience requires, political authority must meet a heavy burden.

What Is Conscience?

But conscience has burdens proper to itself as well. To understand the nature of conscience and the ground of its claim to freedom, we do well to turn to John Henry Newman, the great nineteenth-century English intellectual. Newman understood human beings as free and rational creatures—creatures whose freedom and rationality reflects their having been made in the very image and likeness of God.

Newman’s dedication to the rights of conscience is well known. Even long after his conversion from Anglicanism to Catholicism, he famously toasted “the Pope, yes, but conscience first,” as he put it in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (1875). Our obligation to follow conscience was, he insisted, in a profound sense primary and even overriding. Is there a duty to follow the teachings of the pope? Yes, to be sure. As a Catholic, he would affirm that with all his heart. If, however, a conflict were to arise, such that conscience (formed as best as one could form it) forbade one’s following the pope, well, it is the obligation of conscience that must prevail.

Many of our contemporaries will be tempted to see in this their own view of conscience—as an interior, self-liberating referral of grave moral questions to our “feelings” or untutored intuitions as “autonomous” beings. But Newman, the most powerful defender of freedom of conscience, held a view of conscience and freedom that could not be more deeply at odds with such a view. Let Newman himself state the difference:

Conscience has rights because it has duties; but in this age, with a large portion of the public, it is the very right and freedom of conscience to dispense with conscience. Conscience is a stern monitor, but in this century it has been superseded by a counterfeit, which the eighteen centuries prior to it never heard of, and could not have mistaken for it if they had. It is the right of self-will.

Conscience, as Newman understood it, is the very opposite of “autonomy” in the modern sense. It is not a writer of permission slips. It is not in the business of licensing us to do as we please or conferring on us “the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Rather, conscience is one’s last best judgment specifying the bearing of moral principles one grasps, yet in no way makes up for oneself, on concrete proposals for action. Conscience identifies our duties under a moral law that we do not ourselves make. It speaks of what one must do and what one must not do. Understood in this way, conscience is, indeed, what Newman said it is: a stern monitor.

Contrast this understanding of conscience with what Newman condemns as its counterfeit. Conscience as “self-will” is a matter of feeling or emotion, not reason. It is concerned not so much with the identification of what one has a duty to do or not do, one’s feelings and desires to the contrary notwithstanding, but rather, and precisely, with sorting out one’s feelings. Conscience as self-will identifies permissions, not obligations. It licenses behavior by establishing that one doesn’t feel bad about doing it, or, at least, one doesn’t feel so bad about doing it that one prefers the alternative of not doing it.

I’m with Newman. His key distinction is between conscience, authentically understood, and self-will—conscience as the permissions department. His core insight is that conscience has rights because it has duties. The right to follow one’s conscience, and the obligation to respect conscience—especially in matters of faith, where the right of conscience takes the form of religious liberty of individuals and communities of faith—obtain not because people as autonomous agents should be able to do as they please; they obtain, and are stringent and sometimes overriding, because people have duties and the obligation to fulfill them. The duty to follow conscience is a duty to do things or refrain from doing things not because one wants to follow one’s duty, but even if one strongly does not want to follow it. The right of conscience is a right to do what one judges oneself to be under an obligation to do, whether one welcomes the obligation or must overcome strong aversion in order to fulfill it. If there is a form of words that sums up the antithesis of Newman’s view of conscience as a stern monitor, it is the imbecilic slogan that will forever stand as a verbal monument to the “Me-generation”: “If it feels good, do it.”

Freedom, Justice, and Duty

Fifty years ago, Martin Luther King, Jr., responded in his Letter from Birmingham Jail to those who criticized his program of civil disobedience as mere willful law-breaking:

I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

King turned not inward to his own feelings of being aggrieved by the law, not to the intuitions of his autonomous self, and not even to a claim of his own rights. Instead he turned to “moral responsibility”—to obligation, to duty. He, like Newman, understood this as a duty to principles of justice we did not create, but to which we must respond. As the Declaration of Independence teaches us, prior to any laws made by men are the immutable standards of justice—standards by which we judge whether the laws are just and can rightfully command our obedience.

These standards, of the equal dignity of all human persons, of their equal freedom, and of the accountability of government to the people, apply not just to our own laws but to those of other nations as well. As the United Nations recognized in its 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, religious freedom is an essential principle of justice, in all nations and in all ages. Our Congress said the same in the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. All of us have a duty, in conscience, to work for the religious freedom of all men and women everywhere.

Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program at Princeton University. He is the new chairman of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. This essay, adapted from his new book Conscience and Its Enemies, represents his own opinions. He is not speaking on behalf of the USCIRF.

10 steps to legalizing abortion using lies, ignorance, bullying and stealth - by Dr. Eoghan De Faoite

In Life Institute

1. Get Planned Parenthood to take a dubious court case to Europe and pay for it with Irish taxes.

This is what kicked it all off; ABC v Ireland at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The court ruled in favour of 'C', a cancer patient who said she was unclear whether she could have an abortion in Ireland if her pregnancy affected her cancer and became life-threatening. Here are some little known facts about that case: C did not have cancer at the time of her abortion; she had completed therapy for a “rare form of cancer” and was in remission.

She decided to have an abortion because she was unsure if and how the pregnancy would affect her on the off-chance that her cancer relapses. She said she was unsure because her GP could not provide her with sufficient information on her condition. Not surprising, this is not a General Practitioners area. No evidence was offered as to whether she sought advice from a gynae-oncologist who specializes in cancer in pregnancy and who would have been able to give her all the info she required for her hypothetical scenario. In fact this case heard no medical evidence whatsoever. (1)

A vague case with a questionable story that heard no medical evidence and was fought by an American Planned Parenthood lawyer. Wait, an American interfering with Irish abortion laws? I thought that wasn’t allowed? Well it happened. And she was paid with your taxes.

2. Confuse everyone about the results of the ECHR ruling. Or just lie to them. Whatever works

The judges in the ECHR ruled that Ireland should clarify whether, and under which circumstances, an abortion may be performed to save the life of a pregnant woman. CLAR-IF-Y. They said that this clarification can be done by a “legislative or regulatory regime”. Legislation OR regulation. Or do nothing. The ECHR ruling could be ignored altogether if we so wished. Many rulings have been ignored by other Governments. But our Government don’t want you to know that. Instead they have spun the line that they are obliged to legislate because of this ruling and furthermore that they are obliged to legislate for the ruling in the X Case. Rubbish. Firstly the Court said to clarify the situation,which can be done by regulations (if we want) and secondly, the ruling is not binding, so it can be ignored (if we want). Enough of the spin, this ruling did not oblige us in any way to legislate for the X Case.

3. Set up an “Expert Group” to see how the ECHR ruling can be implemented. Be sure to include:

• A doctor who signed a statement supporting abortion legislation 20 years previously
• An associate of the Doctors for Choice group
• A university lecturer who is on record saying the embryo is not a person
• A Senior Counsel who worked on the X Case to establish a legal right to abortion in Ireland

Biased much?

4. Lie to the people to get elected and insult them by breaking the promise you made.

Question: How do you know a politician is lying?

Answer: Their lips are moving.

This is true now more than ever. Let’s be clear about this: In 2011 Fine Gael made a pre-election promise to the Irish electorate that they would not legislate for abortion. (2) They were subsequently elected with a landslide victory. Phil Hogan, the Director of Elections for Fine Gael wrote from the General Election HQ; “Fine Gael is opposed to the legalisation of abortion”. Really Phil. Simon Harris TD sent an “anxious email” to Pro-Life Campaign days before the election; “I am happy and proud to assure you I am pro-life. Please be assured of my support. I need No1 votes on Friday so I can be in a position to support these positions in Dail Eireann”. (3) Really Simon. Last time I checked, voting for a bill that allows abortion through all nine months of pregnancy is not pro-life.

Politicians break promises all the time, nothing new there; however it is a bit more disturbing when a broken promise will cost the life of another human being.

5. Convince people that abortion is medically necessary. Confuse, confuse, confuse.

Convince the people that legalising abortion is all about saving women’s lives. It’s about protecting women. Without abortion women will die and those who are opposed to abortion legislation don’t care if they do. This kind of rhetoric has been spun so much one would be forgiven for thinking abortion is the cure for every illness under the sun.

The facts remain; no pro-life person is against any treatment that is needed to save a woman’s life in pregnancy. We support this treatment even if it risks the life of the baby, and we agree with Dr Sam Coulter Smyth Master of the Rotunda Hospital that these treatments are not considered to be abortions. We support the two patient model whereby a doctor does everything he or she needs to do to preserve the life of the woman while doing everything he or she can do to preserve the life of the baby. And this is what happens in Ireland. Ireland is an extremely safe place for mothers. Our maternal death rate at 8/100,000 (4) is one of the lowest in the world. Lower than the UK, lower than the USA. We also know from UK statistics that women are not leaving Ireland to access life-saving treatment abroad (5).

So what is the problem? At this juncture it would be helpful to note the following statement which originated in Dublin and has been signed by over 200 Obstetricians from Ireland and abroad (6) : “As experienced practitioners and researchers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”

6. Exploit a tragedy and ignore the facts

Perhaps the most dishonest, disrespectful and hysterical point in the abortion saga was the exploitation of the death of Savita Halappanavar in order to progress the campaign to legalise abortion. (7).

Savita died from E.coli ESBL septicaeamia. That’s according to her official death certificate. According to Kitty Holland she died because she was ‘denied a termination’ and because of a supposed ‘Catholic ethos’ that exists in Irish hospitals. She may not have said it quite as direct ast this but she didn't need to, the spin was there. Never have I seen quotation marks used so advantageously than in that infamous Irish Times headline: “Woman 'denied a termination' dies in hospital”. She may as well have illuminated, underlined, italicised and put 'denied a termination' in bold just to make sure this story became an abortion controversy. Two things contributed to the death of Savita Halappanavar; one was bad luck and the other was bad practice. Savita contracted an infection caused by a severely resistant strain of E.coli known as ESBL. This means that there are only very few antibiotics available that will kill it. These antibiotics would not be commenced initially as you would have no reason to suspect this rare superbug. This means that while you wait to identify the bug (a process that can take up to three days) the ESBL infection is festering and spreading as the antibiotics given to fight the infection would be just like giving administering water; they don’t work against ESBL.

This was the case with Savita. It was, unfortunately, very bad luck that she contracted an infection of this nature and it seems she contracted it prior to her admission into hospital. The second contributor was that her diagnosis of sepsis was missed by staff. A blood test on admission showing infection was not followed up on and her vital signs indicating sepsis were not acted upon because of poor communication. In subsequent, but perhaps too-little-too-late reporting, the Irish Times admits that “had four-hourly measurements of pulse, blood pressure, temperature and respiratory rate been carried out in accordance with guidelines..then the clinical team would have reacted more promptly”. (8)

This is unfortunately bad practice and this led to a delay in making the diagnosis. Dr Peter Boylan, the expert witness to the coroner’s inquest, says in his submission that her signs on Tuesday at 7pm were “in hindsight” suggestive of a developing chorioamnionitis. The treatment of a chorioamnionitis is antibiotics and removal of the source of sepsis (placenta and amniotic sac). Unfortunately for Savita however, the antibiotic she was on was never going to work and the diagnosis at that time was missed. This may be poor performance, but let’s not forget that according to the UK report on bacterial sepsis in pregnancy sepsis is often missed, it is insidious in onset, spreads quickly and can be a “silent killer”. It is the number one cause of maternal death in the UK where abortion is legal. (9) But this extremely relevant information does not make it into the mainstream press. Instead the name Savita Halappanavar will forever be followed by the line “the Indian woman who died after being denied a termination”. Good one Kitty.

7. Hold pretend hearings (x 2) on the abortion legislation but be careful not to listen to the evidence presented.

They were described as a “farce” by one member of the Oireachtas committee. The Minster of Health was criticised for “running out of the chamber” before the hearings even began. (10) It looked like the evidence was going to be ignored before it was even presented. An exercise in time -wasting. Every invited psychiatrist testified that abortion is not a treatment for suicidal ideation. The countries leading suicide researcher Prof Kevin Malone warned that the bill could ‘normalise suicide’. Every invited obstetrician testified that they do not withhold any treatment during pregnancy if a woman needs it to save her life. The two Masters of the maternity hospitals said that neither of them knew of a case where a woman in Ireland had died because treatment was withheld.

Dr Sam Coulter Smyth, Master of the Rotunda Hospital, the countries busiest maternity hospital, said that there was “no evidence” to treat suicide with abortion and that he and his consultant colleagues would have major concerns with legalising abortion on suicide grounds. But what was the point of all this? The January hearings had finished maybe 5 minitues before the Minister of Health addressed the room and said the Government was committed to legislation. And he had not even been there for the hearings. What a sham. Everything that was presented, all of the problems with the bill, all the medical evidence given by experts was ignored. It didn’t even go in one ear, let alone out the other. Save your breath experts, you may as well be talking to the wall.

8. Talk about everything else except what’s in the Bill.

Whatever you do, do not talk about Bill. In fact do not even talk about abortion. Give the bill a very nice name like “Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill”. Don’t mention abortion! Talk about everything else except abortion; the Catholic Church, abuse scandals, rosaries, gay rights, nasty emails, crazy pro-lifers. Tell the world about every negative comment you receive about your legalisation of abortion but don’t produce any evidence (Regina Doherty) (11).

Tell the world about these horrible people tormenting you with holy medals and brown scapulars (Enda Kenny) (12).

Talk about anything else under the sun so you won’t have to talk about what’s in the Bill. So you won’t have to talk about the fact that it allows abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. So you won’t have to acknowledge that abortion is not a treatment of suicidal ideation. So you won’t have to be reminded that you are openly breaking your pre-election promise to the electorate.

So you won’t have to talk about the fact that you propose forced premature delivery of a healthy baby, subjecting them to all complications of prematurity which they must then live with in state custody. Say anything to deflect the attention away from the bill and towards the horrible pro-lifers who are exposing what you are really doing. And remember to keep insisting you are 100% pro-life while you legislate for abortion. You couldn't make this stuff up!

9. Repeat yourself ad nauseum about the ‘restrictive’ nature of the bill. Be careful not to let anything else slip!

If we’ve heard it once we’ve heard it a thousand times. “This is a very restrictive piece of legislation”. “This bill won’t open the floodgates for abortion”. “This bill only clarifies what is already existing law”. “This isn’t about taking the first step towards more liberal abortion”. Really? Not according to to Aodhan O’Riordan TD and Anne Ferris TD who were more a lot more truthful about what’s really involved, albeit not realizing that they were blowing the lid on the Government. (13)

In secretly taped conversations that were published in the Sunday Independent, we get to hear what’s really going on with the abortion bill: this is a “starting point” says O’Riordan but admits he wouldn’t state this publicly. Ferris said “we get the first part done and we move on to the next bit”. But careful not to say this in public! Be sure to go along with what Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore are saying that the bill is very restrictive. O’Riordan explains how to do this: “I’m on the radio and somebody says to me ‘it’s a starting point for abortion on demand’ I’m gonna say ‘No of course it isn’t – it is what it is”. Wow Aodhan, thanks for the lesson in how to be deceiving liar.

10. Don’t be a leader; be an autocratic ruler who won’t take NO for an answer

Whether Eamon Gilmore has him on a leash or whether he’s on his own personal abortion crusade Enda Kenny has shown just what kind of a leader he really is. He isn’t one. He is an autocratic ruler who dictates to his party colleagues – it’s my way or the high way. In a disturbing display of tyrannical ruling he applied the party whip to an issue as conscientious as abortion, forcing his party colleagues to vote against their conscience or face being thrown out of the parliamentary party and stripped of all their committee and/or ministerial duties.

So let’s get this straight; a candidate tells his or her electorate that they are not going to legislate for abortion if they get elected. They subsequently get elected and are then threatened with expulsion by the party ‘leader’ for doing exactly what they told the electorate they were going to do. What kind of a politics is that? The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines Fascism as “a political philosophy that stands for an autocratic government, headed by a dictatorial leader”. I’ll let you draw the parallels.

Unfortunately however, in reality, these politicians don’t end up doing what they said they were going to do. They crumble under Enda Kenny’s iron fist and, out of for fear of being turfed out into the political wilderness, vote for a flawed and medically unsound abortion bill. This is all after a few drinks in the Dail bar and some ‘horseplay’ in the Dail chambers. (14).

Such is the state of Irish politics. The Dail is a circus full of clowns with one of them holding the ringmasters whip. It all may seem like a joke, but it is now the unborn child who pays the ultimate price for their stupidity, lies, deception, and bullying.

References

1. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-102332#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-102332%22]}
2. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/fg-asked-prolife-group-to-spread-election-message-29230068.html
3. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/creighton-faces-ejection-with-vow-to-follow-conscience-on-abortion-29401260.html
4. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/non-recording-of-maternal-deaths-not-easily-addressed-says-professor-1.1417679
5. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/12/13/since-1992-no-abortions-in-uk-in-irish-women-to-save-their-life/
6. http://www.dublindeclaration.com/signatories/
7. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/prochoice-activists-got-tipoff-on-tragic-death-28902755.html
8. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/medical-view-focus-on-basics-of-care-likely-to-help-save-lives-1.1428063
9. http://www.oaa-anaes.ac.uk/assets/_managed/editor/File/Reports/2006-2008%20CEMD.pdf
10. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/reilly-criticised-for-leaving-hearing-on-abortion-legislation-1.1397223
11. http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2013/0608/world/gardai-probe-threats-to-td-from-anti-abortion-pair-233580.html
12. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/taoiseach-says-he-has-been-branded-a-murderer-for-his-stance-1.1426512
13. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-tapes-sting-labour-duo-reveal-plan-to-liberalise-law-bit-by-bit-29226554.html
14. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/horseplay-td-tom-barry-mortified-by-his-actions-29414604.html

1. Get Planned Parenthood to take a dubious court case to Europe and pay for it with Irish taxes.

This is what kicked it all off; ABC v Ireland at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The court ruled in favour of 'C', a cancer patient who said she was unclear whether she could have an abortion in Ireland if her pregnancy affected her cancer and became life-threatening. Here are some little known facts about that case: C did not have cancer at the time of her abortion; she had completed therapy for a “rare form of cancer” and was in remission.
She decided to have an abortion because she was unsure if and how the pregnancy would affect her on the off-chance that her cancer relapses. She said she was unsure because her GP could not provide her with sufficient information on her condition. Not surprising, this is not a General Practitioners area. No evidence was offered as to whether she sought advice from a gynae-oncologist who specializes in cancer in pregnancy and who would have been able to give her all the info she required for her hypothetical scenario. In fact this case heard no medical evidence whatsoever. (1)
A vague case with a questionable story that heard no medical evidence and was fought by an American Planned Parenthood lawyer. Wait, an American interfering with Irish abortion laws? I thought that wasn’t allowed? Well it happened. And she was paid with your taxes.

2. Confuse everyone about the results of the ECHR ruling. Or just lie to them. Whatever works

The judges in the ECHR ruled that Ireland should clarify whether, and under which circumstances, an abortion may be performed to save the life of a pregnant woman. CLAR-IF-Y. They said that this clarification can be done by a “legislative or regulatory regime”. Legislation OR regulation. Or do nothing. The ECHR ruling could be ignored altogether if we so wished. Many rulings have been ignored by other Governments. But our Government don’t want you to know that. Instead they have spun the line that they are obliged to legislate because of this ruling and furthermore that they are obliged to legislate for the ruling in the X Case. Rubbish. Firstly the Court said to clarify the situation,which can be done by regulations (if we want) and secondly, the ruling is not binding, so it can be ignored (if we want). Enough of the spin, this ruling did not oblige us in any way to legislate for the X Case.

3. Set up an “Expert Group” to see how the ECHR ruling can be implemented. Be sure to include:

• A doctor who signed a statement supporting abortion legislation 20 years previously
• An associate of the Doctors for Choice group
• A university lecturer who is on record saying the embryo is not a person
• A Senior Counsel who worked on the X Case to establish a legal right to abortion in Ireland

Biased much?

4. Lie to the people to get elected and insult them by breaking the promise you made.

Question: How do you know a politician is lying?
Answer: Their lips are moving.
This is true now more than ever. Let’s be clear about this: In 2011 Fine Gael made a pre-election promise to the Irish electorate that they would not legislate for abortion. (2) They were subsequently elected with a landslide victory. Phil Hogan, the Director of Elections for Fine Gael wrote from the General Election HQ; “Fine Gael is opposed to the legalisation of abortion”. Really Phil. Simon Harris TD sent an “anxious email” to Pro-Life Campaign days before the election; “I am happy and proud to assure you I am pro-life. Please be assured of my support. I need No1 votes on Friday so I can be in a position to support these positions in Dail Eireann”. (3) Really Simon. Last time I checked, voting for a bill that allows abortion through all nine months of pregnancy is not pro-life.
Politicians break promises all the time, nothing new there; however it is a bit more disturbing when a broken promise will cost the life of another human being.

5. Convince people that abortion is medically necessary. Confuse, confuse, confuse.

Convince the people that legalising abortion is all about saving women’s lives. It’s about protecting women. Without abortion women will die and those who are opposed to abortion legislation don’t care if they do. This kind of rhetoric has been spun so much one would be forgiven for thinking abortion is the cure for every illness under the sun.
The facts remain; no pro-life person is against any treatment that is needed to save a woman’s life in pregnancy. We support this treatment even if it risks the life of the baby, and we agree with Dr Sam Coulter Smyth Master of the Rotunda Hospital that these treatments are not considered to be abortions. We support the two patient model whereby a doctor does everything he or she needs to do to preserve the life of the woman while doing everything he or she can do to preserve the life of the baby. And this is what happens in Ireland. Ireland is an extremely safe place for mothers. Our maternal death rate at 8/100,000 (4) is one of the lowest in the world. Lower than the UK, lower than the USA. We also know from UK statistics that women are not leaving Ireland to access life-saving treatment abroad (5).
So what is the problem? At this juncture it would be helpful to note the following statement which originated in Dublin and has been signed by over 200 Obstetricians from Ireland and abroad (6) : “As experienced practitioners and researchers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”
- See more at: http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/blog/2013/07/20/how-to-legalise-abortion-with-lies-bullying-ignorance-and-stealth/#sthash.v26djlFJ.dpuf

1. Get Planned Parenthood to take a dubious court case to Europe and pay for it with Irish taxes.

This is what kicked it all off; ABC v Ireland at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The court ruled in favour of 'C', a cancer patient who said she was unclear whether she could have an abortion in Ireland if her pregnancy affected her cancer and became life-threatening. Here are some little known facts about that case: C did not have cancer at the time of her abortion; she had completed therapy for a “rare form of cancer” and was in remission.
She decided to have an abortion because she was unsure if and how the pregnancy would affect her on the off-chance that her cancer relapses. She said she was unsure because her GP could not provide her with sufficient information on her condition. Not surprising, this is not a General Practitioners area. No evidence was offered as to whether she sought advice from a gynae-oncologist who specializes in cancer in pregnancy and who would have been able to give her all the info she required for her hypothetical scenario. In fact this case heard no medical evidence whatsoever. (1)
A vague case with a questionable story that heard no medical evidence and was fought by an American Planned Parenthood lawyer. Wait, an American interfering with Irish abortion laws? I thought that wasn’t allowed? Well it happened. And she was paid with your taxes.

2. Confuse everyone about the results of the ECHR ruling. Or just lie to them. Whatever works

The judges in the ECHR ruled that Ireland should clarify whether, and under which circumstances, an abortion may be performed to save the life of a pregnant woman. CLAR-IF-Y. They said that this clarification can be done by a “legislative or regulatory regime”. Legislation OR regulation. Or do nothing. The ECHR ruling could be ignored altogether if we so wished. Many rulings have been ignored by other Governments. But our Government don’t want you to know that. Instead they have spun the line that they are obliged to legislate because of this ruling and furthermore that they are obliged to legislate for the ruling in the X Case. Rubbish. Firstly the Court said to clarify the situation,which can be done by regulations (if we want) and secondly, the ruling is not binding, so it can be ignored (if we want). Enough of the spin, this ruling did not oblige us in any way to legislate for the X Case.

3. Set up an “Expert Group” to see how the ECHR ruling can be implemented. Be sure to include:

• A doctor who signed a statement supporting abortion legislation 20 years previously
• An associate of the Doctors for Choice group
• A university lecturer who is on record saying the embryo is not a person
• A Senior Counsel who worked on the X Case to establish a legal right to abortion in Ireland

Biased much?

4. Lie to the people to get elected and insult them by breaking the promise you made.

Question: How do you know a politician is lying?
Answer: Their lips are moving.
This is true now more than ever. Let’s be clear about this: In 2011 Fine Gael made a pre-election promise to the Irish electorate that they would not legislate for abortion. (2) They were subsequently elected with a landslide victory. Phil Hogan, the Director of Elections for Fine Gael wrote from the General Election HQ; “Fine Gael is opposed to the legalisation of abortion”. Really Phil. Simon Harris TD sent an “anxious email” to Pro-Life Campaign days before the election; “I am happy and proud to assure you I am pro-life. Please be assured of my support. I need No1 votes on Friday so I can be in a position to support these positions in Dail Eireann”. (3) Really Simon. Last time I checked, voting for a bill that allows abortion through all nine months of pregnancy is not pro-life.
Politicians break promises all the time, nothing new there; however it is a bit more disturbing when a broken promise will cost the life of another human being.

5. Convince people that abortion is medically necessary. Confuse, confuse, confuse.

Convince the people that legalising abortion is all about saving women’s lives. It’s about protecting women. Without abortion women will die and those who are opposed to abortion legislation don’t care if they do. This kind of rhetoric has been spun so much one would be forgiven for thinking abortion is the cure for every illness under the sun.
The facts remain; no pro-life person is against any treatment that is needed to save a woman’s life in pregnancy. We support this treatment even if it risks the life of the baby, and we agree with Dr Sam Coulter Smyth Master of the Rotunda Hospital that these treatments are not considered to be abortions. We support the two patient model whereby a doctor does everything he or she needs to do to preserve the life of the woman while doing everything he or she can do to preserve the life of the baby. And this is what happens in Ireland. Ireland is an extremely safe place for mothers. Our maternal death rate at 8/100,000 (4) is one of the lowest in the world. Lower than the UK, lower than the USA. We also know from UK statistics that women are not leaving Ireland to access life-saving treatment abroad (5).
So what is the problem? At this juncture it would be helpful to note the following statement which originated in Dublin and has been signed by over 200 Obstetricians from Ireland and abroad (6) : “As experienced practitioners and researchers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”
- See more at: http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/blog/2013/07/20/how-to-legalise-abortion-with-lies-bullying-ignorance-and-stealth/#sthash.v26djlFJ.dpuf

1. Get Planned Parenthood to take a dubious court case to Europe and pay for it with Irish taxes.

This is what kicked it all off; ABC v Ireland at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The court ruled in favour of 'C', a cancer patient who said she was unclear whether she could have an abortion in Ireland if her pregnancy affected her cancer and became life-threatening. Here are some little known facts about that case: C did not have cancer at the time of her abortion; she had completed therapy for a “rare form of cancer” and was in remission.
She decided to have an abortion because she was unsure if and how the pregnancy would affect her on the off-chance that her cancer relapses. She said she was unsure because her GP could not provide her with sufficient information on her condition. Not surprising, this is not a General Practitioners area. No evidence was offered as to whether she sought advice from a gynae-oncologist who specializes in cancer in pregnancy and who would have been able to give her all the info she required for her hypothetical scenario. In fact this case heard no medical evidence whatsoever. (1)
A vague case with a questionable story that heard no medical evidence and was fought by an American Planned Parenthood lawyer. Wait, an American interfering with Irish abortion laws? I thought that wasn’t allowed? Well it happened. And she was paid with your taxes.

2. Confuse everyone about the results of the ECHR ruling. Or just lie to them. Whatever works

The judges in the ECHR ruled that Ireland should clarify whether, and under which circumstances, an abortion may be performed to save the life of a pregnant woman. CLAR-IF-Y. They said that this clarification can be done by a “legislative or regulatory regime”. Legislation OR regulation. Or do nothing. The ECHR ruling could be ignored altogether if we so wished. Many rulings have been ignored by other Governments. But our Government don’t want you to know that. Instead they have spun the line that they are obliged to legislate because of this ruling and furthermore that they are obliged to legislate for the ruling in the X Case. Rubbish. Firstly the Court said to clarify the situation,which can be done by regulations (if we want) and secondly, the ruling is not binding, so it can be ignored (if we want). Enough of the spin, this ruling did not oblige us in any way to legislate for the X Case.

3. Set up an “Expert Group” to see how the ECHR ruling can be implemented. Be sure to include:

• A doctor who signed a statement supporting abortion legislation 20 years previously
• An associate of the Doctors for Choice group
• A university lecturer who is on record saying the embryo is not a person
• A Senior Counsel who worked on the X Case to establish a legal right to abortion in Ireland

Biased much?

4. Lie to the people to get elected and insult them by breaking the promise you made.

Question: How do you know a politician is lying?
Answer: Their lips are moving.
This is true now more than ever. Let’s be clear about this: In 2011 Fine Gael made a pre-election promise to the Irish electorate that they would not legislate for abortion. (2) They were subsequently elected with a landslide victory. Phil Hogan, the Director of Elections for Fine Gael wrote from the General Election HQ; “Fine Gael is opposed to the legalisation of abortion”. Really Phil. Simon Harris TD sent an “anxious email” to Pro-Life Campaign days before the election; “I am happy and proud to assure you I am pro-life. Please be assured of my support. I need No1 votes on Friday so I can be in a position to support these positions in Dail Eireann”. (3) Really Simon. Last time I checked, voting for a bill that allows abortion through all nine months of pregnancy is not pro-life.
Politicians break promises all the time, nothing new there; however it is a bit more disturbing when a broken promise will cost the life of another human being.

5. Convince people that abortion is medically necessary. Confuse, confuse, confuse.

Convince the people that legalising abortion is all about saving women’s lives. It’s about protecting women. Without abortion women will die and those who are opposed to abortion legislation don’t care if they do. This kind of rhetoric has been spun so much one would be forgiven for thinking abortion is the cure for every illness under the sun.
The facts remain; no pro-life person is against any treatment that is needed to save a woman’s life in pregnancy. We support this treatment even if it risks the life of the baby, and we agree with Dr Sam Coulter Smyth Master of the Rotunda Hospital that these treatments are not considered to be abortions. We support the two patient model whereby a doctor does everything he or she needs to do to preserve the life of the woman while doing everything he or she can do to preserve the life of the baby. And this is what happens in Ireland. Ireland is an extremely safe place for mothers. Our maternal death rate at 8/100,000 (4) is one of the lowest in the world. Lower than the UK, lower than the USA. We also know from UK statistics that women are not leaving Ireland to access life-saving treatment abroad (5).
So what is the problem? At this juncture it would be helpful to note the following statement which originated in Dublin and has been signed by over 200 Obstetricians from Ireland and abroad (6) : “As experienced practitioners and researchers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”
- See more at: http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/blog/2013/07/20/how-to-legalise-abortion-with-lies-bullying-ignorance-and-stealth/#sthash.v26djlFJ.dpuf

1. Get Planned Parenthood to take a dubious court case to Europe and pay for it with Irish taxes.

This is what kicked it all off; ABC v Ireland at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The court ruled in favour of 'C', a cancer patient who said she was unclear whether she could have an abortion in Ireland if her pregnancy affected her cancer and became life-threatening. Here are some little known facts about that case: C did not have cancer at the time of her abortion; she had completed therapy for a “rare form of cancer” and was in remission.
She decided to have an abortion because she was unsure if and how the pregnancy would affect her on the off-chance that her cancer relapses. She said she was unsure because her GP could not provide her with sufficient information on her condition. Not surprising, this is not a General Practitioners area. No evidence was offered as to whether she sought advice from a gynae-oncologist who specializes in cancer in pregnancy and who would have been able to give her all the info she required for her hypothetical scenario. In fact this case heard no medical evidence whatsoever. (1)
A vague case with a questionable story that heard no medical evidence and was fought by an American Planned Parenthood lawyer. Wait, an American interfering with Irish abortion laws? I thought that wasn’t allowed? Well it happened. And she was paid with your taxes.

2. Confuse everyone about the results of the ECHR ruling. Or just lie to them. Whatever works

The judges in the ECHR ruled that Ireland should clarify whether, and under which circumstances, an abortion may be performed to save the life of a pregnant woman. CLAR-IF-Y. They said that this clarification can be done by a “legislative or regulatory regime”. Legislation OR regulation. Or do nothing. The ECHR ruling could be ignored altogether if we so wished. Many rulings have been ignored by other Governments. But our Government don’t want you to know that. Instead they have spun the line that they are obliged to legislate because of this ruling and furthermore that they are obliged to legislate for the ruling in the X Case. Rubbish. Firstly the Court said to clarify the situation,which can be done by regulations (if we want) and secondly, the ruling is not binding, so it can be ignored (if we want). Enough of the spin, this ruling did not oblige us in any way to legislate for the X Case.

3. Set up an “Expert Group” to see how the ECHR ruling can be implemented. Be sure to include:

• A doctor who signed a statement supporting abortion legislation 20 years previously
• An associate of the Doctors for Choice group
• A university lecturer who is on record saying the embryo is not a person
• A Senior Counsel who worked on the X Case to establish a legal right to abortion in Ireland

Biased much?

4. Lie to the people to get elected and insult them by breaking the promise you made.

Question: How do you know a politician is lying?
Answer: Their lips are moving.
This is true now more than ever. Let’s be clear about this: In 2011 Fine Gael made a pre-election promise to the Irish electorate that they would not legislate for abortion. (2) They were subsequently elected with a landslide victory. Phil Hogan, the Director of Elections for Fine Gael wrote from the General Election HQ; “Fine Gael is opposed to the legalisation of abortion”. Really Phil. Simon Harris TD sent an “anxious email” to Pro-Life Campaign days before the election; “I am happy and proud to assure you I am pro-life. Please be assured of my support. I need No1 votes on Friday so I can be in a position to support these positions in Dail Eireann”. (3) Really Simon. Last time I checked, voting for a bill that allows abortion through all nine months of pregnancy is not pro-life.
Politicians break promises all the time, nothing new there; however it is a bit more disturbing when a broken promise will cost the life of another human being.

5. Convince people that abortion is medically necessary. Confuse, confuse, confuse.

Convince the people that legalising abortion is all about saving women’s lives. It’s about protecting women. Without abortion women will die and those who are opposed to abortion legislation don’t care if they do. This kind of rhetoric has been spun so much one would be forgiven for thinking abortion is the cure for every illness under the sun.
The facts remain; no pro-life person is against any treatment that is needed to save a woman’s life in pregnancy. We support this treatment even if it risks the life of the baby, and we agree with Dr Sam Coulter Smyth Master of the Rotunda Hospital that these treatments are not considered to be abortions. We support the two patient model whereby a doctor does everything he or she needs to do to preserve the life of the woman while doing everything he or she can do to preserve the life of the baby. And this is what happens in Ireland. Ireland is an extremely safe place for mothers. Our maternal death rate at 8/100,000 (4) is one of the lowest in the world. Lower than the UK, lower than the USA. We also know from UK statistics that women are not leaving Ireland to access life-saving treatment abroad (5).
So what is the problem? At this juncture it would be helpful to note the following statement which originated in Dublin and has been signed by over 200 Obstetricians from Ireland and abroad (6) : “As experienced practitioners and researchers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”
- See more at: http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/blog/2013/07/20/how-to-legalise-abortion-with-lies-bullying-ignorance-and-stealth/#sthash.v26djlFJ.dpuf

8. Talk about everything else except what’s in the Bill.

Whatever you do, do not talk about Bill. In fact do not even talk about abortion. Give the bill a very nice name like “Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill”. Don’t mention abortion! Talk about everything else except abortion; the Catholic Church, abuse scandals, rosaries, gay rights, nasty emails, crazy pro-lifers. Tell the world about every negative comment you receive about your legalisation of abortion but don’t produce any evidence (Regina Doherty) (11).
Tell the world about these horrible people tormenting you with holy medals and brown scapulars (Enda Kenny) (12).
Talk about anything else under the sun so you won’t have to talk about what’s in the Bill. So you won’t have to talk about the fact that it allows abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. So you won’t have to acknowledge that abortion is not a treatment of suicidal ideation. So you won’t have to be reminded that you are openly breaking your pre-election promise to the electorate.
So you won’t have to talk about the fact that you propose forced premature delivery of a healthy baby, subjecting them to all complications of prematurity which they must then live with in state custody. Say anything to deflect the attention away from the bill and towards the horrible pro-lifers who are exposing what you are really doing. And remember to keep insisting you are 100% pro-life while you legislate for abortion. You couldn't make this stuff up!

9. Repeat yourself ad nauseum about the ‘restrictive’ nature of the bill. Be careful not to let anything else slip!

If we’ve heard it once we’ve heard it a thousand times. “This is a very restrictive piece of legislation”. “This bill won’t open the floodgates for abortion”. “This bill only clarifies what is already existing law”. “This isn’t about taking the first step towards more liberal abortion”. Really? Not according to to Aodhan O’Riordan TD and Anne Ferris TD who were more a lot more truthful about what’s really involved, albeit not realizing that they were blowing the lid on the Government. (13)
In secretly taped conversations that were published in the Sunday Independent, we get to hear what’s really going on with the abortion bill: this is a “starting point” says O’Riordan but admits he wouldn’t state this publicly. Ferris said “we get the first part done and we move on to the next bit”. But careful not to say this in public! Be sure to go along with what Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore are saying that the bill is very restrictive. O’Riordan explains how to do this: “I’m on the radio and somebody says to me ‘it’s a starting point for abortion on demand’ I’m gonna say ‘No of course it isn’t – it is what it is”. Wow Aodhan, thanks for the lesson in how to be deceiving liar.

10. Don’t be a leader; be an autocratic ruler who won’t take NO for an answer

Whether Eamon Gilmore has him on a leash or whether he’s on his own personal abortion crusade Enda Kenny has shown just what kind of a leader he really is. He isn’t one. He is an autocratic ruler who dictates to his party colleagues – it’s my way or the high way. In a disturbing display of tyrannical ruling he applied the party whip to an issue as conscientious as abortion, forcing his party colleagues to vote against their conscience or face being thrown out of the parliamentary party and stripped of all their committee and/or ministerial duties.
So let’s get this straight; a candidate tells his or her electorate that they are not going to legislate for abortion if they get elected. They subsequently get elected and are then threatened with expulsion by the party ‘leader’ for doing exactly what they told the electorate they were going to do. What kind of a politics is that? The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines Fascism as “a political philosophy that stands for an autocratic government, headed by a dictatorial leader”. I’ll let you draw the parallels.
Unfortunately however, in reality, these politicians don’t end up doing what they said they were going to do. They crumble under Enda Kenny’s iron fist and, out of for fear of being turfed out into the political wilderness, vote for a flawed and medically unsound abortion bill. This is all after a few drinks in the Dail bar and some ‘horseplay’ in the Dail chambers. (14).
Such is the state of Irish politics. The Dail is a circus full of clowns with one of them holding the ringmasters whip. It all may seem like a joke, but it is now the unborn child who pays the ultimate price for their stupidity, lies, deception, and bullying.

References

1. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-102332#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-102332%22]}
2. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/fg-asked-prolife-group-to-spread-election-message-29230068.html
3. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/creighton-faces-ejection-with-vow-to-follow-conscience-on-abortion-29401260.html
4. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/non-recording-of-maternal-deaths-not-easily-addressed-says-professor-1.1417679
5. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/12/13/since-1992-no-abortions-in-uk-in-irish-women-to-save-their-life/
6. http://www.dublindeclaration.com/signatories/
7. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/prochoice-activists-got-tipoff-on-tragic-death-28902755.html
8. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/medical-view-focus-on-basics-of-care-likely-to-help-save-lives-1.1428063
9. http://www.oaa-anaes.ac.uk/assets/_managed/editor/File/Reports/2006-2008%20CEMD.pdf
10. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/reilly-criticised-for-leaving-hearing-on-abortion-legislation-1.1397223
11. http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2013/0608/world/gardai-probe-threats-to-td-from-anti-abortion-pair-233580.html
12. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/taoiseach-says-he-has-been-branded-a-murderer-for-his-stance-1.1426512
13. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-tapes-sting-labour-duo-reveal-plan-to-liberalise-law-bit-by-bit-29226554.html
14. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/horseplay-td-tom-barry-mortified-by-his-actions-29414604.html
- See more at: http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/blog/2013/07/20/how-to-legalise-abortion-with-lies-bullying-ignorance-and-stealth/#sthash.v26djlFJ.dpuf